JDM mocked natures teachers. He would have lived longer if he wasnt an ignorant in this sense. Case closed.

Knowledge isn't based in immanent criticism if it's not submitted openly for peer review.

This is the difference between objective, subjective and intersubjective. Two people wash each others' backs or they get "bacne" (back acne).

Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse fraud wasn't exposed until 1930 when Charles Poor reviewed it.
I would worry less about James's opinion and more about the criminals censoring his work, as if they wouldn't stab you given opportunity⸮

I have my peers. Fuck your group think.

What group think?

I am not out to change the world just passing through.

Whoever wants to benefit from my pass can.

What most people define as “objective” isnt “objective” they change their hypothesis to fit the data.

Otherwise far worse they change the data

I just said there are worse threats to your progress than James DeMeo.
For all you criticize him, you benefit from his work. Your improvements to his devices wouldn't be possible without his prior work. You would be working from WR's schematic.

Second generation orgone subjected children

I dont benefit from his work. I benefit from WR.

Yup, like the metric fraud, which has nothing to do with the size or shape of the earth and everything to do with 13 inches = 33 centimeters numerological cukt insanity

What I do love about JDM is that he got before and afters of patients in accumulator 💫

I sadly have no one who believes only myself and I dont have a “before” unless I purposefully injury myself

We are lacking in community, in moral support, but we must not steal attention for making things worse.

We need to investigate. How did he die???

Did you meet him? We tried paying him to come do a demonstration but he was insulted by it… massive ego

Yeah infowars is trash

I contacted infowars multiple times anonymously through TAILS.ISO and gave them leads on building the things and never had a response back. Also tried to go to other “journalists”. Same thing. Their CIA liaison probably intercepts the communications lol

A lot of journalism is letting people talk.
It doesn't work like in an interrogation chamber or in a strip club. Honest journalism, even gonzo, records what happens with integrity. A gonzo exercises more influence than a conventional journalist, but it's beyond unethical and into the criminal to torture or bribe. Journalists with less integrity will offer frivolous rewards or money to get someone to speak, but the testimonies never have integrity, only skew. An honest journalist can't use that kind of testimony for anything other than proof that the person can be bought or extorted.

If no one's releasing information,
there's no end of valid reason for maintaining privacy, especially in this climate.
You need to offer the person real and tangible help that they can use in order to get an honest answer out of them.
If you can't do that,
you don't get the news story.
Either someone else breaks the story or it stays buried urban legend or such.

Lesson from my freshman college journalism class
You're a journalist
They already don't like you
So be nice
You're not like the police or lawyers that they don't like either because the average person sees the need for police and lawyers but not journalists

He was Research Director almost 45 years, published countless books and journals, sold more and cheap, hosted Lou Hochberg Awards, and that is a short random list, from memory, not active research. For his many successes and unmatched feats of scholarship, he will likely go underappreciated or thoroughly unappreciated.

He was 57 before I corresponded with him. I only caught slices of the last fifteen years of his life. Whatever ill I could have to speak of him personally is just that, personal.
I appreciate his work and chose not to interfere. I sent him my work and news of my exploits at various times and got varying positive and negative feedback. Some criticisms I accepted; some I rejected; some encouragement, I accepted; some I did not. I never wasted time arguing with him or seeking his public endorsement. My work was always in support of his. Even where he was patently wrong like 9/11, chemtrails, NWO, I was his apologist.

If you get 10% wrong on a test, that's still 90% right, an A grade, and they pass people with 30% wrong remember.
I'd have to say he got a lot more right than 90% and it took me years to track down obscure out of print books to corroborate his scholarly writings.